Well, to be honest, I am on my diuretics/potassium citrate mixture/low-salt diet regime for the foreseeable future. But if it stops me getting kidney stones and the associated agony of a full blown renal colic (I've had two already - not fun), I'm OK with that. Plus, being over a certain age, my prescriptions are free.
I'm sorry to hear that, and hope you're managing the situation OK.
The thing is, there's nothing wrong with taking supplements, if it has been shown that they can be beneficial (Pixel42 has posted about GSE, for example).
The problem is that those, like our own dear Caroline13, go from this to create an artificial, ideological, divide between supplements and medicine, in which the former are all good, and the latter all bad.
The propaganda she so gullibly spouts couches the various quack remedies advertised on those sites as being a righteous struggle of the little guy against the big meanie corporations and those horrid scientists.
The reality is, of course, that there is no real reason why these two 'sides' should be in opposition. One can take supplements, and also benefit from pharmaceuticals and surgery: it doesn't have to be an 'either-or'.The recommendations for supplementing Vitamin D, by the NHS among others, are a good example of how, when something is studied and tested and found to be useful, it is approved and recommended.
The phrasing of this artificial divide in emotive, ideological anti-establishment terms encourages that segment of society to respond more favourably to the messages, and to disengage their critical thinking faculties, in order to be able to sell them a very mixed bag of products. Some supplements are beneficial, which we know because they've been tested; others are utterly useless, and some are downright dangerous- MMS being the obvious one. (And one Caroline13 is recommending, btw.)
That both pharmaceuticals and supplements can be beneficial, and that both are made for profit, is clearly a concept that has not occurred to the likes of Dear Caroline13.
